beta
Text
1. Of the judgment below, the defendants amounting to KRW 30,000,000 shall be jointly and severally imposed on the plaintiff from October 13, 2009.
Reasons
1. The lower court determined on the grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed). The lower court determined on September 12, 2009 that the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to Defendant B on October 12, 2009, based on the relevant employment evidence, to the effect that the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation to the Plaintiff on the same day, and that C died on January 30, 2014, and Defendant F solely inherited Defendant C, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, concluded an agreement between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and the deceased on September 7, 2012 to withdraw the instant lawsuit in accordance with the performance angle as of September 7, 2012.
The Defendants’ assertion that Nonparty E was exempted from the above loan obligation is dismissed, and the Defendants jointly and severally held that they were liable to pay the above loan and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation
2. Ex officio determination on damages for delay
A. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or the scope of the obligation, prior to the adjudication of fact-finding that declares that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent.” Thus, if the obligor contests the existence and the scope of the obligation to perform the obligation and accepts the assertion in the first instance trial, the argument is reasonable even if it is rejected in the appellate trial.